Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:15, 15 January 2013

Military history: South Pacific Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force

New Zealand: Māori Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Māori task force.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on October 31, 2004, October 31, 2005, October 31, 2006, and October 31, 2007.

"Unjust confiscation" - isn't this POV? Some people would argue that for thousands of years men have fought other men for control over their land.

Well, considering the NZ government paid a lot of money and the Queen made a formal apology about it, perhaps it is a fair statement of fact. older≠wiser 23:39, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, that was what I had inmind when I used the word "unjust". It was the judgement of history, not my own. ping 07:31, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"rendered the Paterangi Line redundant" ... I think the word should be "moot". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.204.193.68 (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Missing "the" in title

It's good to see this linked from the main page. However, the current title "Invasion of Waikato" seems wrong to me. It's always "the Waikato" in common speech, and in everything else I've read. However since it was changed from "Invasion of the Waikato" almost a year ago, maybe I'm missing something. Does anyone object to changing it back?

I think it should likewise be "the Waikato" and "the King Country" in the text. -- Avenue 22:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC) The title is wrong and misleading.This was a series of battles that was really a continuation of the Taranaki Campaign.It should be entitled "The Waikato Campaign".Dont forget that at least 4 Tainui chiefs had signed the Treaty of Waitangi, so the Government was entitled to feel that the Waikato area was part of NZ.You cant invade a piece of land that you already have as part of your nation.When Te Whero wero was asked why he wouldnt sign he said (at Manakau )that he had not been given enough presents ie tobacco,blankets etc-ie he felt he had been undervalued by the govt.It is PC now to forget that the 1860 govt really did believe the Kingites were rebels.28 Sept 2010 Claudia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.191.195 (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The use of the word 'the' is problematic for several reasons, in my humble opinion. First, it is too common, and often superfluous. It can cause problems with properly indexing the content. It often implies an event that is more important than it really is, although in this case the invasion effectively ended large-scale, organized resistance by the Maori.

Let me give you an example: The Battle of the Bulge was a seminal event near the end of the second world war. It reminded the allied troops that the German Army was not something to be trifled with, even as it was being defeated, and that whatever they thought they knew about its capabilities could in a moment be swept aside by the fact of a few divisions on the ground, racing for a sector classed as a resting area for active-duty front-line troops.

I would agree that for the Maori, invading Waikato was a seminal event. For the British though, it was a fairly minor policing action that the Maori had no chance of seriously opposing, given that besides the 2000 front line troops, there were an additional 8000 troops guarding forts along the supply route. In my example above, the Germans almost opened a hole in the allied line big enough to drive an entire army through.

I don't really care one way or the other, since I object to the title using the word 'invasion' in the first place. Maori had already recognized the technological and farming improvements brought by the British Colonialists (including potatoes). Maori might not like it, but the title would be more accurate if it were titled something like 'King Movement Suppression'. I know I don't have the ideal solution just yet, but agree we should talk about it. Kadathdreamques (talk) 06:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Unlinked Sources.

One editor keeps adding things that look like links, and yet if I try a manual search with them, I get no results.

I am tempted to just remove them, but don't want to get into an edit war.Kadathdreamques (talk) 00:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

CONFISCATION FIGURES The problem with figures showing the ammount of confiscated land is that quite early on after the Waikato campaign a large ammount (275,000 acres or about 23%) was returned almost immediately returned-most of it was as native reserves but some of it (50,000acres)to individual hapu who had in fact supported the Govt.The kingitanga has always beeen sore about this as they claim it was returned to the wrong people but have never produced any evidence to back this point as far as I can see.I suspect they are quiet as the land was infact "stolen" from other hapu during the preceeding musket wars.

Now ,some of the total figures include land that was already returned.Of course in the Waikato only a fraction of the "Govt" land was ever taken up as so few settlers wanted land in the Waikato when they could get land much easier in the Sth Is,which was owned by the govt ,was largely flat and forest free.Most important of all it was peaceful there. Most of the land surveyed around Hamilton and given to soldiers was abandoned ,or on -sold to officers or land speculators by 1865-67.Hamilton did not reach 1000 settlers till 1900!ie Between 1863-64 and 1900 the population grew by 200 people-so much for the big land grab myth. Claudia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.157.212 (talk) 09:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Maori law? Lore?

It is a big stretch to call the Maori sytem of retribution "law".The system was suited to illiterate tribal folk in lieu of anything better and depended very much on the person and the mood of the people and the chief-in other words it was arbitrary.Without a literate society or a good chunk of society ,then the function and administration of law becomes haphazard in other words it was based on lore and custom.Maori had no separate legal or justice system.Claudia Jan 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.37.160 (talk) 08:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

King Movement Suppression

It has been suggested before that in view of what is now known that this is a better title than Invasion of the Waikato....It must be recalled that a significant number of Maori toa-some from the Waikato supported the Govt.A large number of the battles took place in Auckland -well north of the self declared Maori border giving significant credance to the "attack on Auckland "scenario.I believe in all there were about 9 conflicts in Auckland . After the war when the confiscations first took place a large number of hapu protested as they had either fought on the govt side or remained neutral- so they were returned land.The pa/stockade that was established at Rangiriri on a hill near the present village was occuppied by a rangitira who supported the govt.The confiscation figures show that the actual proportion of the land taken was small-even then much was returned after 1864.The old idea of the war being a "land grab" has been largely discredited.The Waikato did not have any real economic development of note till the 1920s-it was not till the swamps were drained , the land fertilized ,road and rail links established and the British market for butter and cheese developed that the population grew.Also can you "invade "land that is already part of Nz and had been for 23 years?It should be noted that 4 Waikato chiefs signed the treaty in 1840 according to the treaty road show.The old idea that the land wars was Maori v Pakeha is clearly wrong.What happened in the King Country after the war ie tension/conflict between Maniapoto and the Kingitanga over who should sell the land for the railway shows that the war was about Maori who wanted to sell land being able to do so without being threatened (or killed as happened at Waitara).With Maniapoto(who had been the most violent anti govt in 1860-1864-changing their mind to a pro govt stance, the Kingitanga was left high and dry-at one stage the King was so distraught that he considered going to Taranki according to the royal house -though to do what is not revealed.Clearly the govt wanted:-the rule of law-the suppression(note not necessarily the destruction) of the kingitanga and peace.King Movement Suppression anyone? Claudia Jan 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.32.26 (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

44 Tainui " federation" chiefs signed the treaty

The original Treaty Of Waitangi documents clearly show that 44 Waikato area chiefs signed the treaty.In the Treaty Road Show this was changed to 4 chiefs ,which was clearly wrong and a serious mistake. The iwi clearly broke the treaty by going to war against the government. The steps in the Waikato war were:1 the attack on Kawau Island to steal massive supplies of gunpowder,2 the attempted seaborne invasion of Auckland via the Waitemata Harbour,3 The attack by Rewi Maniapoto on the troops at Taranaki when a truce was in place.4 The attempt by Rewi to murder the CMS missionary in Te Awamutu,5 The burning down of the Te Awamutu mission and the Maori trade school 6 The building of the secret base for thousands of warriors in the Wairoa Hills in Auckland 7 The refusal to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen 8 The refusal to hand in Firearms 9 The forcing of all settlers out of the Waikato 10 The actual attacks on settlers and soldiers in Auckland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.190.164 (talk) 09:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The article has been tagged since 2008 for inadequate sourcing. You continue to add material, much of it not directly relevant to the article's subject, without citations. I have also found one example (which I have removed) where the citation was incorrect. The charitable view is that the editor copied down the wrong page number; an alternative view is that it was added to give the appearance of authenticating the claim. Much of the problematic material has been added by one editor, and comments such as those above ("which was clearly wrong and a serious mistake") provide further proof of that editor's determination to have many NZ articles reflect their own outlook on history. All new material must carry a full and correct citation or it will be challenged and removed. BlackCab (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I have seldom read such a pompous paragraph on wiki.The bottom line of wiki is assume good faith. Blackcob seems to ignore that and make all sorts of weird and wonderful assumptions and inferences that are far fetched and simply untrue. They seem dedicated to an ultra conservative view of history that bares little resemblance to the known facts in 2013.I would call it "1950s thinking". I no longer have the book which you refer to as having a wrong citation so I cant recheck it. I presume you have the book ?It would be more scholarly to put in the correct page number (assuming it is incorrect), rather than delete the whole section. You seem to be a very negative person. You use the term "problematic material", when I think you mean material that is new to you or that does not equate to your ultra conservative view of the world. To me it seems you need to read more widely and to adopt a new more open view of history.Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk)

Actually the bottom line of Misplaced Pages is the five pillars. The second of those is that material must be written from a neutral point of view (which you constantly ignore) and that articles strive for verifiable accuracy, which you also ignore. "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here." WP:V also states: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." Your answer above shows that you don't understand much of that at all, or choose to ignore it. BlackCab (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Unsupported claims

IP user 122.62.226.243, who has been blocked several times for disruptive editing, has persisted in reinstating material I deleted from this article for several reasons.
1. The statement about unprovoked attacks is unsourced opinion.
2. The reference to an unprovoked rebel attack in Taranaki explicitly contradicts the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal's report.
3. The Michael King citation is false. No such statement is at that page.
4. The claim that the king had no influence is unsourced opinion.
5. The reference to mounting Maori anger is inadequately sourced.
6. The wheat farms claim is unsourced opinion.
The IP user will be blocked again if he/she continues. BlackCab (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC) You continue to push the same line .Without going into all your points several of them are well covered by by the information from Gorst's book(which is already noted as a reference) who was actually present when most of these events were taking place.You should note that not all information from the Waitangi tribunal is reliable as this is not a court of law . The evidence presented is not sworn nor do the normal rules of evidence apply ie hearsay is quite acceptable. The tribumals"evidence" has to be weighed against what actually happened at the time, not an interpretation of what happened.There was a very disturbing event in 2012 when a historical researcher investigating Maori population trends in the South Islandin the 19th century, was refused payment by his employer because his findings did not match the preconceived ideas of his employers.Before he could be paid he was forced to alter(ie falsify) his conclusions. No doubt his "evidence" will appear online soon if it is not there already.

• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history articles
• Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force articles
• Start-Class New Zealand articles
• Mid-importance New Zealand articles
• Start-Class Māori articles
• Unknown-importance Māori articles
• WikiProject New Zealand articles
• Selected anniversaries (October 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (October 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (October 2006)
• Selected anniversaries (October 2007)